United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Deon Wilson, an inmate in Vienna Correctional Center
(“Vienna”), brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his
constitutional rights. In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims the
defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical issues in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc.
1). This case is now before the Court for a preliminary
review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
(a) Screening - The court shall review,
before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as
practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal - On review, the
court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness is an
objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable
person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209
F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). An action fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of
entitlement to relief must cross “the line between
possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. At
this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir.
careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to allow this case to proceed
past the threshold stage.
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: on December 29, 2017, Plaintiff visited the
Health Care Unit to request special shoes. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He
had experienced issues with “damaged feet”
previously. Id. Defendant Nurse Practitioner Mary
Ann told Plaintiff that he had “toe deformities,
enlarged joints, flat feet, and redness and permanence of
toes.” Id. Plaintiff was then referred to
Defendant Penny George for his request for special shoes.
Id. Plaintiff signed a money voucher for his $5
co-pay. Id. The co-pay was deducted from inmate
Roland Wilson's account. Id. Defendant Mary Ann
had also previously “mixed up Plaintiff's and Mr.
Roland Wilson's Medical Files.” Id. In
fact, Roland Wilson was taken to Plaintiff's medical
appointments on January 2, 12, 18, 25, 26, and 27, 2018 by
February 2, 2018, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Dr. David.
(Doc. 1, p. 7). David told Plaintiff that he did not have a
foot deformity and therefore did not need special shoes.
Id. David then excused Plaintiff, denying him any
care, despite Plaintiff's objections that he was in pain.
Id. On February 2, 2018, Roland Wilson had his blood
drawn instead of Plaintiff. Id.
was scheduled to have his blood drawn for a rheumatoid
arthritis test. Id.
filed a grievance on February 23, 2018, claiming that
“he was afraid of the way his health issues would be
handled” because his medical files had been mixed up
with Roland Wilson's. Id. The response from the
counselor noted that, per Defendant George, Plaintiff was
seen on February 2, 2018 to evaluate his feet and should
submit a sick call request if he was still having foot
issues. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-8). Plaintiff then sent his grievance
to the grievance officer who responded to him noting that,
per Defendant George: “The appropriate individual,
which is offender Wilson, R32597 was given appropriate
medications, shots, and had blood drawn.” (Doc. 1, p.
8). Plaintiff's blood had not been drawn, however.
Id. Plaintiff then appealed to the Administrative
Review Board, which denied his claim as unsubstantiated.
March 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed another grievance concerning
his ongoing pain and continued neglect. Id. It was
denied. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-9). Plaintiff believes that
Vienna's Health Care Unit failed to ensure the privacy of
his health information in the course of the alleged medical
file mix-ups, which jeopardized his health. (Doc. 1, p. 9).
requests declaratory and preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief “ordering all defendants and IDOC to cease
depriving offenders/Plaintiff of the right to follow through
with grievance procedures and/or aiding in such deprivations,
and implement discipline for such actions.” (Doc. 1, p.